so true...
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Does science make belief in God obsolete?
- Thread starter ShoeshineBoy
- Start date
so true...
Quote from BernardRichards:
That is a valid request Jem. You want me to cite sources that Jesus is a figment of Paul's imagination. But I must question as to why you couldn't find these sources yourself. We are afterall both on the Internet, and those sources are just a few keystrokes away from both of us. Why can't you move your little fingers to get to those sources if that is what you are looking for?
The early Christians were all Jews. A Jew claiming divinity would have been burned at the steak in a manner of speaking, but in reality possibly stoned to death by some zealots 2,000 years ago or ostracized as a mad man.
That is why Judaism originated in the first place. A man claiming to be God was pure paganism. Also, based on metaphysical principles and how God defines himself in the Torah it is impossible that there is any physicality to God.
He can not be born because that would mean that he is changing states, and a Perfect Being can not move from one perfection to another. That is an impossibility. There is only one final state of perfection that defines the Divinity. Similarly, he can not die because again that would imply that He is changing states. Jesus if you believe that he existed was like any other human being. He was born and he died so there is no way that he can fulfill the characteristics of God as defined in the Torah.
All of this stuff about Jesus being divine or part of the Trinity comes from paganism, and since Christianity is in effect an amalgamation of Judaism and paganism there is nothing really surprising about that. I already explained that Paul accepted non-Jews as converts to his version of Judaism without circumcision, and as Christianity became the dominant religion it accepted many pagan customs and beliefs so it would be palatable to the many different people that it wanted to absorb.
The idea of a man god which you have with Jesus was nothing new. Again it goes way back to various forms of paganism in antiquity. There were holy virgins that were assigned or dedicated to various gods in antiquity. Now and then there were problems with these holy virgins. One of them became pregnant. How is that possible? They were holy. No man was suppossed to come near them. Well, that could mean only one thing. The god that they were dedicated to impregnated them, and their child was a god or half god. This is pure speculation, but I suspect that this idea of gods impregnating humans got started with a high priest that tried to save his daughter from certain death if it was found out that she had a secret lover.
Ok Jem, I answered some of your questions, but I am sure this is not what you wanted to hear.
You accept Jesus and the New Testament on the basis of blind faith just like a Moslem accepts the Quran and Mohammed as the greatest of prophets on the basis of blind faith. Why don't you want to take a look at the sources that question whether Jesus existed in the first place, and similarly why doesn't your Moslem friend want to question whether Mohammed was really a prophet and holy man? Because both of you have accepted your belief system on the basis of blind faith, and asking these questions would make you heretics, and that would mean based on your beliefs systems that you just bought yourself a box seat in hell for eternity.
This is a debate forum Jem. I may be good a debater, but I am not that good. I can not argue with dogmatists whether they are religious or secular or on the right or on the left. You are not searching for the truth. You and your ilk know the truth already.
What do you want from me -- to validate your belief system which you accepted on the basis of blind faith? Good luck, I'll do that when hell freezes over.
In the next post I'll list some sources for honest truth seekers as to why I believe Jesus was a figment of Paul's imagination, and point you to a treasure trove on this subject.
You acted you could say that Jesus was not a historical figure and yet you could state that Paul was the start of Christianity.
Being that historical records from the time were scarce I wondered if you saw the logical flaw.
Now I see you enjoy speculation about the Jewish religion at the time and you like to cite to partial records and biased sources.
Your point seems to be the Jews would not accept a divine Messiah.
You seem to lack a historical understand of the time and the Jewish testament.
From chapter one - God refers to himself as WE.
The famous cry in the old testament
Hear all Isreal the Lord God is One. Is the Isreals proclaimation of a coming divine messiah - even if they did not know it.
You can check the argument but the word used for "One" is the is the hebrew word for a compound unity. It is used that way in other places in the bible - for instance when branch is grafted to a tree.
You have your speculations about what it meant to be a jew - I quote their bible.
I can also tell you that older copies of their bible arguably le predict the coming of a divine messiah. However so of the books in the Jewish bible in the times before Jewish are no longer in the Jewish bible. There is a raging debate on this subject on the internet. The bottom lines is some Jewish communites had those other books in the bible. Which is the bible used by Catholics.
Plus Isiah has been altered.
Finally - it is conceded that Eusebius or someone else may have augmented the historical record of Josepheus in some of the historical record.
However multiple copies have been found. And scholars almost universal state that Joesphues does record the existence of Jesus and Christian in multiple passages. It is also accepted that the sentence referring to his divinity was probably a fraud.
But, note Joespheus reference to the Christian community is virtually unchallenged.
In short - there are scarce records of the times. One of the best does reference Jesus. So Jesus was probably a historical figure.
And your speculations regarding Paul creating Christianity out of nothing are unsupported speculations and the speculations could never be supported because we have such a scant record.
Which is pretty much why I challenged your statement.
Whether I believe or not is off point. The point was you have no basis for your speculation.
Quote from jem:
You acted you could say that Jesus was not a historical figure and yet you could state that Paul was the start of Christianity.
Being that historical records from the time were scarce I wondered if you saw the logical flaw.
Now I see you enjoy speculation about the Jewish religion at the time and you like to cite to partial records and biased sources.
Your point seems to be the Jews would not accept a divine Messiah.
You seem to lack a historical understand of the time and the Jewish testament.
From chapter one - God refers to himself as WE.
The famous cry in the old testament
Hear all Isreal the Lord God is One. Is the Isreals proclaimation of a coming divine messiah - even if they did not know it.
You can check the argument but the word used for "One" is the is the hebrew word for a compound unity. It is used that way in other places in the bible - for instance when branch is grafted to a tree.
You have your speculations about what it meant to be a jew - I quote their bible.
I can also tell you that older copies of their bible arguably le predict the coming of a divine messiah. However so of the books in the Jewish bible in the times before Jewish are no longer in the Jewish bible. There is a raging debate on this subject on the internet. The bottom lines is some Jewish communites had those other books in the bible. Which is the bible used by Catholics.
Plus Isiah has been altered.
Finally - it is conceded that Eusebius or someone else may have augmented the historical record of Josepheus in some of the historical record.
However multiple copies have been found. And scholars almost universal state that Joesphues does record the existence of Jesus and Christian in multiple passages. It is also accepted that the sentence referring to his divinity was probably a fraud.
But, note Joespheus reference to the Christian community is virtually unchallenged.
In short - there are scarce records of the times. One of the best does reference Jesus. So Jesus was probably a historical figure.
And your speculations regarding Paul creating Christianity out of nothing are unsupported speculations and the speculations could never be supported because we have such a scant record.
Which is pretty much why I challenged your statement.
Whether I believe or not is off point. The point was you have no basis for your speculation.
I was editing when this edit was locked out. It is a toned down a little and perhaps more clear.
You sort of said Jesus was not likely a historical figure and yet you could state that Paul was the start of Christianity.
Being that historical records from the time were scarce I wondered if you saw the flaw in your statement. I still ask how could you know much about the very early church?
I see you enjoy speculation about the Jewish religion at the time. Did you take into account all the different sects at the time?
Your point seems to be the Jews would not accept or expect a divine Messiah.
You seem to lack an understanding of the time and the Jewish testament.
Some Jews were awaiting a Messiah and some were expecting a divine Messiah.
From chapter one of the "Old" testament- God refers to himself as WE.
The famous cry in the old testament...
"Hear all Isreal the Lord God is One." Do you know the definition of that word "one'? You can check the argument but the word used for "One" is the is the hebrew word for a compound unity. It is used that way in other places in the bible - for instance when branch is grafted to a tree.
Now were you also aware of the fact that there have either been revisions to the Jewish bible or at least disputes as to which books were in the bible prior to Christ. Would it surprise you that some of the predictions of the divine messiah were in those books which are no longer in the Jewish bible.
You may also wish to learn about the alterations to Isaiah.
regarding Joesepheus. Why would use such a slanted argument. Were you aware that scholars almost universally agree the statements about Jesus divinity were added to the record, but that there were original references to Jesus and Christians.
Note Josepheus reference to the Christian community is virtually unchallenged.
In short - there are scarce records of the times. One of the best does reference Jesus. So Jesus was probably a historical figure.
And your speculations regarding Paul creating Christianity out of nothing are simply not supported by the scarce records we have of the time.
Which is pretty much why I challenged your statement.
Whether I believe in Christ or not is off point. The point was you have no basis for your speculation. And I simply questioned your sources.
You sort of said Jesus was not likely a historical figure and yet you could state that Paul was the start of Christianity.
Being that historical records from the time were scarce I wondered if you saw the flaw in your statement. I still ask how could you know much about the very early church?
I see you enjoy speculation about the Jewish religion at the time. Did you take into account all the different sects at the time?
Your point seems to be the Jews would not accept or expect a divine Messiah.
You seem to lack an understanding of the time and the Jewish testament.
Some Jews were awaiting a Messiah and some were expecting a divine Messiah.
From chapter one of the "Old" testament- God refers to himself as WE.
The famous cry in the old testament...
"Hear all Isreal the Lord God is One." Do you know the definition of that word "one'? You can check the argument but the word used for "One" is the is the hebrew word for a compound unity. It is used that way in other places in the bible - for instance when branch is grafted to a tree.
Now were you also aware of the fact that there have either been revisions to the Jewish bible or at least disputes as to which books were in the bible prior to Christ. Would it surprise you that some of the predictions of the divine messiah were in those books which are no longer in the Jewish bible.
You may also wish to learn about the alterations to Isaiah.
regarding Joesepheus. Why would use such a slanted argument. Were you aware that scholars almost universally agree the statements about Jesus divinity were added to the record, but that there were original references to Jesus and Christians.
Note Josepheus reference to the Christian community is virtually unchallenged.
In short - there are scarce records of the times. One of the best does reference Jesus. So Jesus was probably a historical figure.
And your speculations regarding Paul creating Christianity out of nothing are simply not supported by the scarce records we have of the time.
Which is pretty much why I challenged your statement.
Whether I believe in Christ or not is off point. The point was you have no basis for your speculation. And I simply questioned your sources.
Quote from BernardRichards:
I couldn't agree with you more!
I am curious when you act, talk, and write TraderZones do you ask yourself how Jesus would act, talk, or write in this situation or how Torquemada, "the hammer of heretics," would act, talk, or write in this situation?
I am more curious why you think people care about Torquemada
Quote from jem:
You sort of said Jesus was not likely a historical figure and yet you could state that Paul was the start of Christianity.
Being that historical records from the time were scarce I wondered if you saw the flaw in your statement. I still ask how could you know much about the very early church?
Did you examine Jim Walker's site? There are plenty of records of when Jesus suppossedly lived. The only problem is that there are no records in Jesus' time pointing to a Jesus as defined in the Gospels. There are no written eyewitness accounts or records. All the records are based on hearsay.
How is that possible if he achieved such fame according to the Christian testament in his time?
I see you enjoy speculation about the Jewish religion at the time. Did you take into account all the different sects at the time?
That is exactly what we are talking about here. The Christians in the first century C.E. were nothing more than a heretical sect of Judaism, and Jesus real or not would be the equivalent of a reform rabbi today.
Your point seems to be the Jews would not accept or expect a divine Messiah.
The messiah is divine in the sense that he was chosen by God like Moses was chosen to take the Hebrews out of Egyptian bondage by God. It doesn't mean that the messiah is God or a part of God. The messiah is a creation of God just like any other creation of God. The bottom line is that the messiah is a human being. Why do you think that no one knows where Moses is really buried?
Moses was a messiah. It means savior. He was God's instrument on Earth to save the Jews from certain annihilation in Egypt through miraculous means.
Had his burial place been known gullible and naive people would have made him divine, and Jesus fact or fiction would have been about 13 hundred years too late to claim the position of a divine messiah.
From chapter one of the "Old" testament- God refers to himself as WE.
This is the royal We. It doesn't mean that God is indicating that He is a plurality, and God is including the heavenly familia with it i.e., the angels (natural forces) that He created as well.
We also know through metaphysics that a Perfect Being can not be a plurality. A Perfect Being has to be perfectly simple. A plurality indicates lack of perfection. You can explore this area in depth in books on metaphysics if it doesn't make obvious sense to you.
The famous cry in the old testament...
"Hear all Isreal the Lord God is One." Do you know the definition of that word "one'? You can check the argument but the word used for "One" is the is the hebrew word for a compound unity. It is used that way in other places in the bible - for instance when branch is grafted to a tree.
Who told you this nonsense Jem? Ehad means one -- not one compound unity. Look it up in any reliable Hebrew dictionary.
Judaism came about because God felt that his Word was going to get lost again because the fools among humankind started to believe again that there existed many gods so He would have to destroy the world again as he did in Noah's time. Billions of people in our time believe in all kinds of nonsense when it comes to the Divine? Why doesn't God destroy the world now?
Because with the selection of the Patriachs and finally the Jewish nation his Word was sealed in humanity forever. Why do you think that the Jews are a constant target for destruction in every generation since they existed. It is not the Jews that the enemies of the Jews are really trying to destroy, but the Word of God because without the Jews the Word of God will disappear from the world.
The "Hitler Youth" sang this song:
We are the joyous Hitler Youth,
We have no need for Christian virtue.
Our leader is our savior;
The pope and rabbi shall
be gone. We shall be pagans once again.
Hitler told his people:
Providence has ordained that I should be the greatest liberator of humanity. I am freeing man from the restraints of an intelligence that has taken charge, from the dirty and degrading self-mortifications of a false vision known as conscience and morality, and from the demands of a freedom and personal independence which only a very few can bear.
Regarding the Bible's influence on culture, Hitler said, "The Ten Commandments have lost their vitality. Conscience is a Jewish invention; it is a blemish, like circumcision."
Herman Rauchning had been Hitlerâs personal confidante, but he abandoned Nazism and attempted to alert the free world to the scope and danger of the Nazi threat. He wrote:
It is against their own insoluble problem of being human that the dull and base in humanity are in revolt in anti-Semitism. Nevertheless Judaism, together with Hellenism and Christianity, is an inalienable component of our Christian Western Civilization â the eternal "call to Sinai," against which humanity again and again rebels.
[from: The Beast From the Abyss, by Hermann Rauchning]
Now were you also aware of the fact that there have either been revisions to the Jewish bible or at least disputes as to which books were in the bible prior to Christ. Would it surprise you that some of the predictions of the divine messiah were in those books which are no longer in the Jewish bible.
You may also wish to learn about the alterations to Isaiah.
What I am aware of is that those that are into replacement theology are frauds, charlatans, and knaves. First we had the Christian Fathers that claimed that now Christianity has replaced Judaism, and then we had Mohammed seven centuries later who claimed that Islam has now replaced Christianity and Judaism.
regarding Joesepheus. Why would use such a slanted argument. Were you aware that scholars almost universally agree the statements about Jesus divinity were added to the record, but that there were original references to Jesus and Christians.
Note Josepheus reference to the Christian community is virtually unchallenged.
Anybody that has studied early Christian history or for that matter the history of the destruction 2nd Temple knows that Josephus is an unrealiable historian. He was imprisoned by the Romans and then his patrons were Romans. He did not write freely!
In short - there are scarce records of the times. One of the best does reference Jesus. So Jesus was probably a historical figure.
And your speculations regarding Paul creating Christianity out of nothing are simply not supported by the scarce records we have of the time.
Which is pretty much why I challenged your statement.
Whether I believe in Christ or not is off point. The point was you have no basis for your speculation. And I simply questioned your sources.
I was right about you. It is impossible to debate with a dogmatist or sophistrist. I gave you a whole site http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm "Did a Historical Jesus Exist?" which gives citation after citation indicating as to the impossibility of a historical Jesus as described in the Gospels as having ever existed, and here you are telling me that I have provided you no sources, and my conclusion is totally baseless.
I'm not sure if you are misguided Jem or if you have an ax to grind, but if it is the former then I suggest you read A History of Christianity, and A History of the Jews by the eminent English historian Paul Johnson who happens to be a true contemporary historical authority on these subjects, and he also happens to be a practicing Roman Catholic so you don't have to be afraid that I am taking you into heretical waters.
This is not going to take 10 years. They are only 2 books of about 500 pages each, and it says in your profile that you like to read so you should be able to get them under your belt in no time.
When you finish reading them, and if you are so inclined to engage me in a discussion then we should be able to have a productive discussion.
The short answer to the topic is in my opinion that science should make all religion obsolete. However, as we all know is very obvious - learning religion is A LOT easier than learning science.
Traditionally in older times, old women would try to hold their status in a family by talking about tales of ghosts, supernatural wonders and other scary stuff and try to keep the respect from children and young ones.
Religion has almost always had a political position - and in some countries this is more expressed than in others - although most countries have some sort of religious party participating in politics.
Taking into regard the need for people without real contribution having the need for feeling respected, they will continue preaching religion - and continuing traditions - some will make professions out of the old stories.
When we go beyond religion we start understanding philosophy - and we are onto science again. Very few religious zealots are capable of taking part in serious philosophy discussion for various reasons, although there are philosophical consequences to the various belief systems. This transforms the blind beliefs into more rational ramifications without all the story-fluff.
Religion is stupid and desperately lost people's way to "find a system in the madness". Thus it has some function, but maybe some day we can bring people to a better educated levels so that they can shed the old shackles.
Oh, and Jesus was a historical person without much doubt. However, there were so many competing "messiahses" at the time, that the whole idea and political rat-race at the time becomes very obvious. Look at www.livius.org for objective looks at ancient history in that region and elsewhere - free from the religious fanaticism.
Traditionally in older times, old women would try to hold their status in a family by talking about tales of ghosts, supernatural wonders and other scary stuff and try to keep the respect from children and young ones.
Religion has almost always had a political position - and in some countries this is more expressed than in others - although most countries have some sort of religious party participating in politics.
Taking into regard the need for people without real contribution having the need for feeling respected, they will continue preaching religion - and continuing traditions - some will make professions out of the old stories.
When we go beyond religion we start understanding philosophy - and we are onto science again. Very few religious zealots are capable of taking part in serious philosophy discussion for various reasons, although there are philosophical consequences to the various belief systems. This transforms the blind beliefs into more rational ramifications without all the story-fluff.
Religion is stupid and desperately lost people's way to "find a system in the madness". Thus it has some function, but maybe some day we can bring people to a better educated levels so that they can shed the old shackles.
Oh, and Jesus was a historical person without much doubt. However, there were so many competing "messiahses" at the time, that the whole idea and political rat-race at the time becomes very obvious. Look at www.livius.org for objective looks at ancient history in that region and elsewhere - free from the religious fanaticism.
If it were true that science would make belief in God obsolete, then it would necessarily follow that elimination of science, or non existence of science would make belief in God valid.
That of course is a logical fallacy, science has not invalidated belief in God nor made belief in God obsolete, but then the atheists aren't ever really very interested in logical consistency in defending their atheism and their own belief systems.
Science has become the religion of the atheists, the dogma of the atheists, and scientists have become for the atheists the apostles of science...consequently the argument of using science to make belief in God obsolete is presented in scientific terms...thus making for a completely circular argument.
That of course is a logical fallacy, science has not invalidated belief in God nor made belief in God obsolete, but then the atheists aren't ever really very interested in logical consistency in defending their atheism and their own belief systems.
Science has become the religion of the atheists, the dogma of the atheists, and scientists have become for the atheists the apostles of science...consequently the argument of using science to make belief in God obsolete is presented in scientific terms...thus making for a completely circular argument.
Quote from Gringinho:
The short answer to the topic is in my opinion that science should make all religion obsolete. However, as we all know is very obvious - learning religion is A LOT easier than learning science.
Traditionally in older times, old women would try to hold their status in a family by talking about tales of ghosts, supernatural wonders and other scary stuff and try to keep the respect from children and young ones.
Religion has almost always had a political position - and in some countries this is more expressed than in others - although most countries have some sort of religious party participating in politics.
Taking into regard the need for people without real contribution having the need for feeling respected, they will continue preaching religion - and continuing traditions - some will make professions out of the old stories.
When we go beyond religion we start understanding philosophy - and we are onto science again. Very few religious zealots are capable of taking part in serious philosophy discussion for various reasons, although there are philosophical consequences to the various belief systems. This transforms the blind beliefs into more rational ramifications without all the story-fluff.
Religion is stupid and desperately lost people's way to "find a system in the madness". Thus it has some function, but maybe some day we can bring people to a better educated levels so that they can shed the old shackles.
Oh, and Jesus was a historical person without much doubt. However, there were so many competing "messiahses" at the time, that the whole idea and political rat-race at the time becomes very obvious. Look at www.livius.org for objective looks at ancient history in that region and elsewhere - free from the religious fanaticism.